Future of Saigas?

[Caspian 32]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/10/31/mikhail-kalashnikov-asks-putin-to-save-izhmash/

 

 

Mikhail Kalashnikov Asks Putin To Save Izhmash

The famed original AK maker Izhmash is on the brink of collapse. Production of sporting rifles has stopped, export contacts cannot be fulfilled and skilled workers are leaving the company. Mikhail Kalashnikov and 16 colleagues have written an open letter to President Putin pleading for his intervention to prevent the company collapsing.

 

An Izhmash Employee inspects a batch of Siaga rifles.

It is hard to sympathise with either Izhmash or Mikhail Kalashnikov. Mikhail Kalashnikov's last open letter addressed to Putin was in 2008. In that letter he accused foreigners of spreading rumours about the collapse of Izhmash in order to undermine the power of Russia.

For most of the past decade there has been almost no innovation from Izhmash. Instead of innovating they used the Russian courts and diplomats to suppress competitors. In 1997 they obtained a patent for the 50 year old AK-47 design. Izhmash used this ridiculous patent to sue and take ownership of their Russian rival Molot.

Izhmash's first new military rifle in years, the AK-12, was introduced earlier this year. It seems it is a little to late.

For the company to survive they need to accept they are no longer a major player in the military and law enforcement market. Their glory days ended a long time ago. State intervention is only going to prolong the pain.

[Cobra 76 two 2,677]

''The production of hunting and sport rifles has been halted and export contracts broken,'' the letter addressed to Putin said.

[YOT 3,743]

#7 of The Communist Manifesto is: "Government ownership of factories and agriculture."

 

ETA: oh-oh.....

Edited October 31, 2012 by Yeoldetool

[PapaZorro 401]

IZMASH now, as well as MOLOT, owned by Government company Rostecnology, that trying to safe it, after it was managed as private company by thievish Top managers, who are Wanted by law. I hope Putins friend Chemezov save the factory that is belong to his holding.

[PapaZorro 401]

#7 of The Communist Manifesto is: "Government ownership of factories and agriculture."

 

ETA: oh-oh.....

 

It's in theory, in practice little bit difference.

 

In modern Russia "Government ownership" = "P...s friends ownership", as in capitalist USA private banks, well known as FRS (owned by few jewish families), print green papers for whole world so many as they wants, Kennedy wanted make FRS owned by US Gov, where is this guy?

Edited October 31, 2012 by PapaZorro

[YOT 3,743]

#7 of The Communist Manifesto is: "Government ownership of factories and agriculture."

 

ETA: oh-oh.....

 

It's in theory, in practice little bit difference.

 

In modern Russia "Government ownership" = "P...s friends ownership", as in capitalist USA private banks, well known as FRS (owned by few jewish families), print green papers for whole world so many as they wants, Kennedy wanted make FRS owned by US Gov, where is this guy?

 

Hence the "Oh-Oh"

[montec 164]

I really hope this doesn't get around to the gun shops. I know where I bought the S12 they were talking up the ban back then.

[Damndirtyape 0]

Hmm glad I got my 12 when I did. Maybe time to pick that 308 up and be done with it.

[dayofruin 425]

The future looks bleak but it has many times before...

[PapaZorro 401]

Don't panic, Putin likes his TV picture & rating as Obama, and don't let to die the plants that is now owed by Gov, he is going to be a President for at least 6 years, or maybe another 6, so you'll have from 6 to 12 years to buy Saigas and Veprs .

[dayofruin 425]

If Obama gets elected for another 4 years, he will ban the import of foreign firearms. This means no more saigas coming into the country if he takes office... Hopefully, this won't be the case and there won't be another ban.

[gunfun 3,931]

They havent been using outright bans as a primary strategy to suppress gun ownership for about 10 years now. The main strategy has been to make them expensive and a hassle so most citizens are priced out of the market. If guns are primarily held by survivalist types and rich enthusiasts, then people in between have less contact with guns and are more easily persuaded that guns are dangerous and unnecessary.

 

The antis don't win by meeting the issue head on. They go around the edges and chip away at ownership and use. If you are paying attention the big changes are in technically allowing gun use on more public lands but designating allmost every time and place off limits for one reason or another through administrative hearings. Washington was off limits for about 2 months in most of the state this year over pretexts about risk of fire. No laws were passed. BLM and our governor declared a bunch of temporary anti-forest fire measures that banned guns on all state public lands in the middle of the state. I didn't see any bans on motorcycles, which do cause brush fires... Similarly, they don't try as hard to ban pistols, they require expensive safety features such as loaded chamber indicator, which knocks the cheap sellers out of the market, and limits the number and type of models a manufacturer can support. It also makes production more time consuming, so a lot of models are always on back order. They get their way with small quiet steps. Why would they want to try and make noise by proposing a ban that will cause use to speak up and resist?

[misterT 174]

Very good points and dont forget one of Obamas suggestions as a senator in Illinois was to add a 500% tax on guns and ammunition! I also liked Pappa Zorros comparison of Soviet governments funding of favorite companys and how our government does virtually the same thing! Between tax breaks for companys like GE that makes $5BIL and pays NO taxes and gov gratns ot companys like Solyndra that make big campaign contributions. Lets also not forget the bail out of Government Motors!

[montec 164]

Tax on loaded ammo I can deal with. I'm not set up for reloading on my calibers I have.

[red308 54]

stock up stock up stock up!

[PapaZorro 401]

If the crisis will continue as some economist predict, The Great Depression will be look like good fary tale, this crisis will berry, not only US economy, but the whole world that we know, only guys who win will be Chinees with their Communist party . If 60-80 % loose their jobs, the life priority will change very quickly from buying guns to bread for survive. Most Gov survive the Banks who are responsible for the crisis, the same in US as in Russia, moving the taxes for helping them, the Gov don't survive small and medium business.

 

[red308 54]

If the crisis will continue as some economist predict, The Great Depression will be look like good fary tale, this crisis will berry, not only US economy, but the whole world that we know, only guys who win will be Chinees with their Communist party . If 60-80 % loose their jobs, the life priority will change very quickly from buying guns to bread for survive. Most Gov survive the Banks who are responsible for the crisis, the same in US as in Russia, moving the taxes for helping them, the Gov don't survive small and medium business.

If you dont have guns you wont have bread.if you have bread and no guns then you wont have your life because the people with the guns will take yours.just my opinion. Edited November 3, 2012 by red308

[PapaZorro 401]

Today Vice Prime minister Rogozin suggested to the Gov to join IZHMASH JSC & IZMECH (Baikal) into Kalashnikov Corporation.

Edited November 3, 2012 by PapaZorro

[dayofruin 425]

What does IZMECH produce?

[danklab 57]

So basically, the next time I go to the gun shop, the couple of saigas they have will be 1k each... and they'll be telling me that those will be the last we'll ever see in America. Fuckin sucks.

[PapaZorro 401]

What does IZMECH produce?

 

These http://baikalinc.ru/ru/company/open/weapon.html

[lbsrdi 1,078]

This

[gunfun 3,931]

I want a drozd. I am an amateur pb tech and you can bet I'll have that thing running smooth and fast. There's a 1200 RPM chip available cheaply enough, and I have the HPA stuff to boost the velocity and reduce operating friction. That will be a very fun toy.

[PapaZorro 401]

I want a drozd. I am an amateur pb tech and you can bet I'll have that thing running smooth and fast. There's a 1200 RPM chip available cheaply enough, and I have the HPA stuff to boost the velocity and reduce operating friction. That will be a very fun toy.

 

IZH Impex Inc is an exclusive distributor in Canada of the Russian firearms produced by Izhevsky Mechanichesky Zavod (IZHMECH) and well known throughout the world under the trade mark Baikal.

Edited November 4, 2012 by PapaZorro

[Squishy 1,149]

The antis don't win by meeting the issue head on. They go around the edges and chip away at ownership and use.

 

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step." Barbara Fass - Stockton, CA Mayor - ABC News Special, Peter Jennings: Guns - 1991-04-11

 

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, "This is a great law. The problem is solved." And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with a half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." - Nelson T. "Pete" Shields - "A Reporter At Large: Handguns", New Yorker, at 53, 58 - Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc. - 1976-07-26

 

"Gun violence won't be cured by one set of laws. It will require years of partial measures that will gradually tighten the requirements for gun ownership, and incrementally change expectations about the firepower that should be available to ordinary citizens." - New York Times - 1993-12-21

[dcgregorya 5]

 

"Gun violence won't be cured by one set of laws. It will require years of partial measures that will gradually tighten the requirements for gun ownership, and incrementally change expectations about the firepower that should be available to ordinary citizens." - New York Times - 1993-12-21

 

This is really what it boils down to. Incrementally changing the expectations of what amount of firepower a person should have access to, until ultimately they have no access at all. Every incident of any type is an excuse to tighten gun control, regardless of how ineffectual or irrelevant just because of lack of resistance. The sad part is this isn't just a gun thing. This is every law, tax and restriction of civil rights in this country. It's like dropping dimes into a shot glass filled with water. It might take a long time but eventually it overflows.

[Squishy 1,149]

This is really what it boils down to. Incrementally changing the expectations of what amount of firepower a person should have access to, until ultimately they have no access at all.

 

Exactly. And their current tactic is to take the Second Amendment off the table altogether as they see that to debate the meaning of or the validity of the Second Amendment is a dead end road. This is from the 2012 Democratic Party platform;

 

"We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms."

 

So when trying to influence those who are on the fence or in the middle politically they can point to this and say "See, we support the second amendment, we support the right to own and use firearms". All the while working in the background, off the radar to limit what kind of firearms we may legally own and use. If through passing laws and restrictions they limit the average citizen to nothing but muzzle loaders they would still be staying true to the party platform. They put forth so called "common sense" restrictions which in itself is a ploy. To label something "common sense" you are saying to the listener "If you have common sense, you'll agree with this". Most people like to believe they have common sense whether they really do or not.

 

And if they have their way after putting one common sense measure after another in place they will slowly erode the basis for the ownership of any firearm. If someone says to me "Why would you be against this common sense law?", I'll say "Because it is part of an overall strategy to do away with civilian firearm ownership greatly limiting or taking away altogether my ability to defend myself and my family, a God given right without which all other rights are meaningless".

 

And they don't have to take my word for it, the anti gunners are on record in their own words in plain unmistakable English.

 

They are willing to be patient and persistent and so must we.

 

In all fairness there are some Democrats who are sincere in their support of Gun Rights, the Second Amendment and the right to self defense. But they are very much at odds with powerful members of their own party who have stated publicly that they will not rest until "civilian" firearm ownership is a thing of the past.

 

Sorry for getting up on a soapbox yet again but in my opinion these things cannot be talked about too much and we cannot be too vigilant in defending our rights and exposing the tactics of those who would take them away to the light of day.

[Molotov Cocktail 9]

Yeah I'm not real worried about someone knockin on my door confiscating my guns in this lifetime or the next. I belong to the NRA and read the newsletters and magazines. Every four years its the same thing....

[dcgregorya 5]

Sorry for getting up on a soapbox yet again but in my opinion these things cannot be talked about too much and we cannot be too vigilant in defending our rights and exposing the tactics of those who would take them away to the light of day.

 

Not at all. I think most of the people here are with you 100%. Here in MD we're fighting to get the 'good and sufficient' clause removed from concealed weapon permits. Anyone who asks me why I think I need to carry I gun I respond to by saying look at all the people who are denied CCW's *UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE ASSAULTED*, at which point the chances of them being assaulted again is almost none. As a law abiding person, I want the permit because if I ever for any reason feel like it's a good idea to carry my handgun somewhere then at that point I'll want to have the permit already instead of having to *then* apply and wait 6 months to see if the chief of police agrees with me or not.

[Squishy 1,149]

Here in MD we're fighting to get the 'good and sufficient' clause removed from concealed weapon permits.

 

It would seem that the total removal of such vague language would definitely be the best thing as it would be reasonable to say that the fact that there are good and sufficient reasons for anyone to be able to protect themselves at anytime goes without saying, it's a given.

 

But if that language is not to be removed it would also seem that pointing to any number of documented cases where a law abiding citizen was preyed upon would serve as good and sufficient reasons to grant the permit. Can anyone say the same things will not happen to you? No!

 

The use of wording that in the end is subjective, a judgement call on someone's part is purposeful I'm sure. It boils down to the person tasked with making the decision.

 

There is nothing subjective about your right to self defense, it is clear. So subjectivity should not figure at all into your being able to legally exercise that right.

 

I wish you success with this.